Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

nz11

nz11

Then, as the years and decades passed, doctors on the frontline started to come back with another question. All over the world, they were being encouraged to tell patients that depression is, in fact, just the result of a spontaneous chemical imbalance in your brain – it is produced by low serotonin, or a natural lack of some other chemical. It’s not caused by your life – it’s caused by your broken brain. Some of the doctors began to ask how this fitted with the grief exception. If you agree that the symptoms of depression are a logical and understandable response to one set of life circumstances – losing a loved one – might they not be an understandable response to other situations? What about if you lose your job? What if you are stuck in a job that you hate for the next 40 years? What about if you are alone and friendless?

The grief exception seemed to have blasted a hole in the claim that the causes of depression are sealed away in your skull. It suggested that there are causes out here, in the world, and they needed to be investigated and solved there. This was a debate that mainstream psychiatry (with some exceptions) did not want to have. So, they responded in a simple way – by whittling away the grief exception. With each new edition of the manual they reduced the period of grief that you were allowed before being labelled mentally ill – down to a few months and then, finally, to nothing at all. Now, if your baby dies at 10am, your doctor can diagnose you with a mental illness at 10.01am and start drugging you straight away.

....................................

Is this for rea,l the period of bereavement is now nothing!!!

I didn't know this.

This is what I know ...the period of time before a season of bereavement is called depression is:

DSM III; 1980 ; 1 year

DSM IV; 1994; 2 months

DSM V; 2013; 2 weeks

now 2 seconds ??... Really

Talk about pharma creep!!

Doctors have never applied these time frames anyway ..people got drugs immediately.

Share on other sites

nz11

nz11

Hari may have the best intentions when it comes to addressing mental health problems like depression, but this doesn’t seem like a good way to go about it. Asserting yourself as a maverick expert and backing your arguments up with suspect cherry picking of evidence and at-the-very-least exaggerated claims? Such a sensitive subject that affects millions surely requires a more thorough, thoughtful and specific approach than this?

But hey, what do I know?

Lets consider

"this backing your arguments up with suspect cherry picking of evidence and at-the-very-least exaggerated claims? Such a sensitive subject that affects millions surely requires a more thorough, thoughtful and specific approach than this?"

This is exactly what pharma have done on all the ghost written ad studies . So I agree the millions harmed by uninformed consent deserved better.

Burnett finishes with But hey, what do I know? I posit if Burnett has never taken any of these drugs for himself then Dr Burnett you in fact correct .... you know nothing!